It’s possible there may have been some adrenaline involved in that shot.
Australia cricket news
Get the email (this is the best option)
May 14, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I find it mildly amusing that the 2 finalists in this tournament are the 2 teams who, up until now, haven’t been at all bothered by the format.
I like to think they’ve both thought ‘Now this 20twenty marlarky, shall we go and win it?’
Admittedley, that’s a far more likely scenario from the Australian camp.
May 15, 2010 at 3:16 am
They haven’t been “at all bothered” by the format because they haven’t ever come this close to winning at it. I’m glad these two teams are in the final because it means that at least one set of pseudo-“purists” will stop whining at last.
May 15, 2010 at 6:43 am
May 15, 2010 at 7:09 am
I think they should switch the runs accorded to hits carrying over and to the boundary – you should get six runs for what is now a four, and four for a six. I’m not bothering to look at the numbers, but I’m pretty certain there are a lot more sixes being hit than fours. It’s just become ridiculously easy.
Ideally, you’d have boundaries at a minimum of 80 yards away, no field restrictions, and using bat technology circa the early 90s, or earlier.
And no protective equipment, and beamers would be allowed.
May 15, 2010 at 7:30 am
And small arms fire from the slip cordon would be legalised after a 75 run partnership.
May 15, 2010 at 7:40 am
Hussey’s knock got a one line piece from you, damn you are lazy.
May 15, 2010 at 8:27 am
e normous, they actually tried an idea much like yours in 1900, according to an article on cricinfo recently. They stuck a low net around the ground; any shot going in to the net got two plus whatever the batsmen ran. Any shot going over it got just three.
Apparently it was a disaster back then, but maybe it’s time for a revival…
Comments are closed.
‘City Cricket Battles’
A random selection of articles from 2007 onwards.
© 2019 King Cricket
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑